In the case of the woman in the original post; A 2-million dollar mansion in SoCal is going to have more than a few security measures. Something failed there, if it came down to her calling the police herself, just as the intruder made it to where she was in the house.
Secondly, Having a gun is different than having one and the willingness to use it. Every post made after the original was based on being ready to blast away themselves. Well, it appears' that this woman did not have a firearm, not because she couldnt' afford one (2,000,000$ house proves that) but most likely, either an aversion, or willingness, to use one.
And this is where this story can be easily spun against firearms. It won't be viewed by a liberal SC justice that this person was denied the right to defend herself; Rather, that a firearm was easy enough to aquire, that someone who wishes to live peaceably, even outside of a large, urban environment, is denied that, because a firearm was available to a criminal. How he got it won't be an issue, just the fact it was available. This is the kind of argument that was used to justify the lawsuits against manufacturers' such as Colt a few years' ago. The person's ability to defend themselves' never really comes into the formula, just the fact that criminals' have access to guns.
The sad point to this is, If it brought up in the supreme court, It will be used against the 2nd, not in support of it.
It's easy for us to tend to look at things' in the manner of how we would handle it. But you have to realize that a story like this will be spun against the 2nd.
BTW, it's just as legal for someone to own a firearm in West Covina as it is in Texas. Where she lives, it is lawful to keep a Semi-automatic pistol or Revolver at home. In that essence, they were available, and didn't stop this from happening.
